Jesus is God - grasping equality

[Wootah]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV

Philippians 2:5-11
English Standard Version
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This is a clear: fully God, fully man situation.

However, depending on your Christian persuasion, there are some questions for you:

How can Jesus be in the form of God but not be God?

How can Jesus be in the form of a man but not a man?

If Jesus is not God, are you really going to bow down to a not God creature?

But mainly question 2. If Jesus cannot grab equality with God why would it phrase it as if He could grab it? So could Jesus have grasped equality with God or not?

if Jesus could have grasped equality with God then he is equal to God. Which dialect of Christianity is going to argue that Jesus could have been equal to God but chose not to but He is not God?

Let's put it this way. Suppose there was Thor's hammer and only the ones who are worthy can pick it up. That means everyone that can pick it up, regardless of whether they do pick it up are equally worthy of holding the hammer.

If Jesus could not have grasped equality then why is that statement in the Bible?

It sure seems like the statement is there in the Bible to show that Jesus could have been equal to God but chose not to.

[onewithhim]

The original Greek word used at Phil.2:6 that has been under discussion is harpagmos. How does this word measure up with Christ and his reputation that is seen throughout the Scriptures (humble and obedient to God)?

The Liddell & Scott Greek dictionary defines harpagmos as "robbery" and "rape." Throughout the entry about this word, and derivatives of it, are usages meaning: to be a robber, thievish, greedily, and plunder. The noun "harpage is used for: (1) seizure, robbery, rape; (2) booty, prey; (3) greediness. Similarly, the noun harpagma means booty or prey. Other words formed associated with this root include: "robber," "greedily," "rapacious, thievish," "stolen," "violently," "bird of prey." Every one of these related words has to do with the seizure of something not yet one's own. These words never have the meaning of holding onto something someone already has.

Christ did not even think of grabbing at equality with God (something he didn't already have), but instead humbled himself to self-sacrifice. All the words derived from harpagmos have no business being associated with Christ. He was not that kind of person.

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #39]

I don't see your point in connection to the thread. How is it connected?

Philippians 2:5-11

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

How can Jesus be in the form of God but not be God?

Jesus was in the form of a man, not a God. Jesus was the Word made flesh. The being from whom Jesus was made flesh was the Word. So the source from which Jesus was made flesh is what existed in the form of God -- not Jesus.

How can Jesus be in the form of a man but not a man?

Jesus was a man, and He died as a man. There are two type of bodies -- natural and spiritual, and they do not mix. Jesus lived and died as a natural bodied man.

If Jesus is not God, are you really going to bow down to a not God creature?

Only those who seek everlasting life will.

But mainly question 2. If Jesus cannot grab equality with God why would it phrase it as if He could grab it? So could Jesus have grasped equality with God or not?

It doesn't phrase it as such. The man Jesus cannot make Himself a God. What Jesus WAS (past tense) before He was made as a man was the Word. The Word was in the form of God -- not Jesus.

If Jesus could have grasped equality with God then he is equal to God.

No man is God, including Jesus. God is a Spirit!

If Jesus could not have grasped equality then why is that statement in the Bible?

It isn't. As a man, Jesus was never God. The statement you refer to is addressing the past tense -- "when he was in the form of God." That was prior to His being made as flesh.

It sure seems like the statement is there in the Bible to show that Jesus could have been equal to God but chose not to.

Jesus gave the credit to God for everything He accomplished. So there's no way Jesus could become equal to God.

The Word made flesh let go of His glories and privileges in Heaven so that we humans on earth might be saved.

Prior to that event, the Word was strictly a God.

[Wootah]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #42]

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

So for all of us it would be robbery to try to be equal to God, except for Jesus.

If Jesus being equal to God is not robbery then he owns that status of being God. He is equal to God. There is one God. He is God.

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #42]

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

So for all of us it would be robbery to try to be equal to God, except for Jesus.

It is blasphemy for any man to assume the qualities of God.

In the human world, robbery is taking something which does not belong to you.

Jesus was a man in the human world.

So why do you exclude Him?

[Wootah]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #42]

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

So for all of us it would be robbery to try to be equal to God, except for Jesus.

It is blasphemy for any man to assume the qualities of God.

In the human world, robbery is taking something which does not belong to you.

Jesus was a man in the human world.

So why do you exclude Him?

That's my point. Anyone considering Jesus as 'not God' stumbles here.

[historia]

Every one of these related words has to do with the seizure of something not yet one's own.

This is demonstrably false, as already shown in post #33 and post #35.

Christ did not even think of grabbing at equality with God (something he didn't already have), but instead humbled himself to self-sacrifice.

From your point of view, is equality with God something Christ could have taken if he didn't already have it?

[AchillesHeel]

The first thing to note is that, regardless of which way one understands “equality with God,” it must be taken in a qualified sense, since even in 2:9-11 Christ’s glory still serves the “glory of God the Father” (cf. 1 Cor 15:28). Strictly speaking, Christ is not “equal to God” either before his metamorphosis or after his exaltation. To interpret “equality with God” sensu stricto is therefore not an option. Nevertheless, both of the above ways of interpreting “equality with God”—as something greater than “form of God” or something roughly synonymous with it—make good sense in the larger context of 2:6-11. If “equality with God” is greater than being in “the form of God,” then it refers ahead to Christ’s further exaltation as God’s vice-regent in 2:9. If, on the other hand, it is simply another way of saying “the form of God,” then it refers back to Christ’s luminous preexistence in 2:6a.

Two considerations point to the latter interpretation, that is, taking “equality with God” as roughly equivalent to “the form of God.” The first consideration concerns the syntax of the Greek: τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεοῦ (lit., “the state of being equal to God”). If, as some have argued, the article (τό) is anaphoric—this can be the case, but it need not be the case—then the expression refers back to “the form of God” in the preceding clause. A second, more compelling consideration in my view looks at the overall rhetoric of the passage and in particular at the parallelism between vv. 6 and 7. Just as in 2:6 “form of God” is followed by “equality with God,” so also in 2:7 “form of a slave” is followed by “human likeness.” Since in the latter case (v. 7) “human likeness” interprets “form of a slave,” it is reasonable to assume that when in the former case (v. 6) Paul wrote “equality to God” he meant it to interpret “form of God.” On this reading “equality with God” would then be hyperbole, emphasizing the extraordinary extent of Christ’s self-humbling and therefore of the exemplary nature of his humility. Returning to the connotation of ἁρπαγμός, if we accept the above arguments that “equality with God” is something already in Christ’s possession, then ἁρπαγμός must mean “something precious to be held on to” or, as I have rendered it, “a possession that he could not part with.” - Paul Holloway, Philippians: A Commentary (Hermeneia), p. 120

A disproof of the interpretation that Jesus was God is that the main meaning of μορφή (morphē) is "form, outward appearance, shape" according to the BDAG. Similar expressions to μορφῇ θεοῦ in Phil. 2:6 are found in Josephus' Ant. 2.232 where the mother of Moses says he had a “divine form” μορφῇ τε θεῖον referring to his appearance in 2.231 - "for the beauty of the child was so remarkable and natural to him on many accounts, that it detained the spectators, and made them stay longer to look upon him."

Also, in Ant. 6.333 when the witch rouses the soul of Samuel she describes what she saw and says his form "was like that of a god" θεῷ τινα τὴν μορφὴν ὅμοιον.

The phrase “form of a god” θεοῦ μορφὴ is also found in Philo's Embassy to Gaius 110. From the previous context in 93-97, Philo is criticizing Gaius for trying to "imitate" the gods and make his "outward appearance" like Mercury, Apollo and Mars.

Also see James Ware's argument that the Philippians Christ Hymn was based on a deliberate exegesis of the Suffering Servant passages from Isaiah. If that's the case, Isa. 52:14 and 53:2 both refer to "outward appearance" and so provide further evidence that μορφή in Phil. 2:6 is being used to refer to outward appearance as well.

[kev.sujith@gmail.com]

[Replying to 1213 in post #2]

Jesus said he and the father are one.
How can a mere human and Father God be one? Jesus must have been wholly God as well as wholly man.
He also claimed to have the ability to forgive sins; only God can do this according to Jewish beliefs. He performed miracles to evidence his divinity.
If Jesus was just a blasphemer and a false prophet, why would God resurrect such a person?
Jesus' resurrection is Yahweh's public vindication of such claims against Jesus.

[1213]

Jesus said he and the father are one.
How can a mere human and Father God be one?

The same way disciples of Jesus are one with God.

I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them through your name which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are.
John 17:11
that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may be-lieve that you sent me.
John 17:21

He also claimed to have the ability to forgive sins; only God can do this according to Jewish beliefs. He performed miracles to evidence his divinity.

The forgiveness is from God, God has given the authority for Jesus and Jesus spoke what God had commanded him to speak.

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak.”
John 12:49-50
Jesus therefore said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and I do nothing of myself, but as my Father taught me, I say these things. He who sent me is with me. The Father hasn’t left me alone, for I al-ways do the things that are pleasing to him.”
John 8:28-29
Jesus therefore answered them, “Most certainly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do-ing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does like-wise.
John 5:19

Same is with disciples of Jesus, they also have the right to forgive sins, but ultimately it comes from God, and they would not do it without God.

If you forgive anyone’s sins, they have been forgiven them. If you retain anyone’s sins, they have been retained.”
John 20:23

If Jesus was just a blasphemer and a false prophet, why would God resurrect such a person?
Jesus' resurrection is Yahweh's public vindication of such claims against Jesus.

So, you don't think Jesus is the one and only true God?

[Wootah]

Jesus said he and the father are one.
How can a mere human and Father God be one?

The same way disciples of Jesus are one with God.

I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them through your name which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are.
John 17:11
that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may be-lieve that you sent me.
John 17:21

He also claimed to have the ability to forgive sins; only God can do this according to Jewish beliefs. He performed miracles to evidence his divinity.

The forgiveness is from God, God has given the authority for Jesus and Jesus spoke what God had commanded him to speak.

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak.”
John 12:49-50
Jesus therefore said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and I do nothing of myself, but as my Father taught me, I say these things. He who sent me is with me. The Father hasn’t left me alone, for I al-ways do the things that are pleasing to him.”
John 8:28-29
Jesus therefore answered them, “Most certainly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do-ing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does like-wise.
John 5:19

Same is with disciples of Jesus, they also have the right to forgive sins, but ultimately it comes from God, and they would not do it without God.

If you forgive anyone’s sins, they have been forgiven them. If you retain anyone’s sins, they have been retained.”
John 20:23

If Jesus was just a blasphemer and a false prophet, why would God resurrect such a person?
Jesus' resurrection is Yahweh's public vindication of such claims against Jesus.

So, you don't think Jesus is the one and only true God?

Actually you should be outraged that a not God creature can give other not God creatures the right to forgive sins.

Q: Who is Jesus that he can forgive sins and delegate forgiving sins to others?
A: God.